I’ve been following this news for most of the day (when time permits)
And realizing I’m not on the ground and therefore am unable to verify what happened, yet, can still surmise from the way Ukraine is presenting this through their media, that it’s likely the strikes took place and the strikes were indeed devastating for Ukrainian forces.
If you read the earlier report you understand that the mayor of the Kramatorsk stated very clear there were NO CIVILIAN CASUALTIES
Details:
The mayor has said that there have been no casualties reported among the civilians.
That is a very specific statement about a very specific group of casualties. The Russian claim was regarding military casualties not civilian. So the Mayor’s statement could be considered a "lie of omission"
Lies of omission occur when an important fact/s are left out in order to foster a misconception
Let’s read more Ukrainian coverage? The Voice of Ukraine
“The Russian ministry on Jan. 8 claimed it had located temporary positions of Ukrainian troops in two college dormitories in Kramatorsk city in Donetsk Oblast.”
The Russian claimed more then two buildings were involved but let’s focus on the two buildings-keeping in mind the Mayor has confirmed no civilian casualties while failing to deny military casualties?
Why didn’t he state there were no civilian or military casualties? Should have been easy enough to do if there had been no military casualties.
That’s problem #1
While confirming multiple targets–Ukraine has shown evidence of missile strikes albeit in limited locations
“The mayor of Kramatorsk, Oleksandr Honcharenko, confirmed that there had been a Russian missile strike against the city on Jan. 8 overnight. He said two educational facilities, eight residential buildings and garages were damaged”
The mayor confirms at least 11 or more targets. That gives us problem #2. Ukraine media, from what I’ve seen is presenting imagery from limited sites. Why? Was their devastating damage at others sites they don’t want the general public to be aware of?
Problem #3- Non sequitir usage
Notice the Ukrainian claim of why this cannot be true
“Serhiy Cherevaty, a spokesman for the Ukrainian army, commenting on these claims to Suspilne TV, said they were untrue.
The Russians are not capable of highly precise strikes
This is non sequitir “The strikes didn’t occur because the Russians are incapable of highly precise strikes” is clearly false. As there has been substantial evidence of the Russian military carrying out highly precise strikes. Did this strike take place should have resulted in an unequivocal no and proof of it not taking place, not a claim of Russians being incapable.
Reuters’ journalists visited the two college dormitories the Russian Defense Ministry had mentioned, neither of which had been seriously damaged by the missile attacks.
“There were
no obvious signsthat soldiers had been living there, and no sign of bodies or traces of blood,” the news agency wrote.
No obvious signs? That’s a qualifier “obvious” Were their inconspicuous or obscured signs that soldiers had been living within the dorms?
This gives up problem #4 with the Ukrainian coverage- more obfuscation. I read the Reuters report as there were signs that Ukrainian soldiers had been there they just weren’t obvious! And I wouldn’t have expected them to be!
My fifth issue with the coverage from Ukrainian media is as follows..
This is a very dangerous fabrication for the Russians. It’s not one I’d think they would make!
My 6th concern is the news of this would be devastating to Ukrainian morale and the Ukrainian forces and their American allies have every reason to keep this on the down low! Which is what we are witnessing via the media coverage.
Finally, my husbands thought as follows- If this had been a college dorm full of young people the Ukrainians would have displayed the dead. And shouted war crimes. But there were no young people, so the Ukrainian media cannot play this angle to their advantage.
My conclusion is the Ukrainian military lost many and they have every reason to lie, obfuscate and deny the losses.
Yes, I could still be wrong, but, you can all read how and why I’ve drawn this conclusion.